By MICHAEL VIRTANEN
Associated Press

ALBANY - New York prosecutors have asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a state court order ending parole-style supervision for scores of violent felons, saying it threatens public safety.

The Manhattan district attorney argued that the Supreme Court should temporarily halt - and ultimately reverse - the ruling by New York's top court.

Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsberg requested a response from the other side by March 18.

The Court of Appeals concluded on Feb. 23 that post-release supervision cannot be imposed after inmates have already served their prison terms. In a 5-2 ruling, the court said resentencing to include supervision, which must be done by judges, has to occur earlier or it amounts to unconstitutional double jeopardy.

The ruling came in appeals from four felons with convictions ranging from burglary to assault and rape.

"At the time of this filing, numerous violent felons have already sought court orders mandating their immediate release from supervision," prosecutors wrote. They said the ruling also undercuts support for released offenders' rehabilitation and could result in "substantial civil liability" for the state, already facing 250 related civil suits.

Defense attorneys said their clients served their prison terms and were resentenced illegally, and that arguments about the threat to public safety were "overblown."

Nearly 1,000 released inmates would be affected, including 139 returned to prison for parole-type violations, corrections spokesman Erik Kriss said March 12. As of March 15, 28 have been released from prison, he said.

There could be more cases later as they continue to review records, Kriss said.

The cases stem from Jenna's Law, passed in New York in 1998 in an effort to keep violent felons locked up through fixed-term sentences followed by post-release supervision for three to five years. That's instead of broad sentencing ranges, with parole boards determining release dates and parole terms.

But in scores of subsequent cases, judges sentenced felons to fixed terms without mentioning post-release supervision. Prosecutors argued that the terms were no surprise to inmates and the lapse amounted to nothing more than oversights by the judges.

While forgetful judges can resentence inmates to add post-release supervision, the Court of Appeals said there has to be a time limit for that. "There is a legitimate expectation of finality once the initial sentence has been served," Hon. Victoria Graffeo wrote.

Defense attorney Mark Zeno said his two clients were waiting for paperwork to clear their release from prison. They were sent back for lesser violations of supervision - which requires seeing a parole officer, drug tests, staying out of bars and other steps - not for convictions of new crimes, he said.

As for the potential threat, attorney Carl Kaplan said the inmates are already released into the community, with or without supervision. His client served four years on a burglary conviction for violating an order of protection and entering his ex-girlfriend's home. He was discharged March 11. "It's not like he's public enemy number one," Kaplan said.